For sure, but it would be a relatively small file, wouldn't it? There's a lot of (reasonable) concern about making multiple HTTP requests, but that's usually when you're evaluating the performance of a single page. As you go between pages you'd be just loading what you need.
Honestly it might require some benchmarking of various apps to compare javascript rendering performance vs HTTP request speed. Also that varies a lot from browser to browser and network to network. Maybe somebody who's been through this before can speak up? ;) Also memory usage and performance due to lots of event handlers should be considered as your application's set of javascript files grows. Brian ;p On Friday, October 31, 2014 6:23:38 PM UTC+1, Geoff Harcourt wrote: > > Brian, > > I think require_tree often leads to problems (it’s one of the first things > I remove when I’m building an app), but by loading specific JS files per > page, aren’t you denying your users’ browsers the opportunity to cache the > JS from other page visits? Separate per-page JavaScript files means your > user has to download new script assets each time they visit a page related > to a controller they haven’t visited before. > > -Geoff > > On Friday, October 31, 2014 at 13:07, Brian Underwood wrote: > > I posted an issue about this ( > https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/17457#issuecomment-61292491 ) but > I'll copy/paste here for discussion convenience: > > > I feel like I'm the boy telling the emperor he has no clothes, but here > goes... > > Every large rails project that I've worked on has had it's application > javascript grow and grow because everybody leaves 'require_tree .' in > application.js. Personally I hate it and remove it whenever I can (it's > harder on legacy projects), but we should be loading javascript in a saner, > more modular way. > > Very often I automagically include javascript files for controllers and > actions if they exist. Here's an example of a helper that I've recently > written (it's not neccessarily pretty, but you get the idea: > > def action_and_controller_javascript_include_tag > capture do > concat javascript_include_tag controller_name if > Rails.root.join("app/assets/javascripts/#{controller_name}.coffee").exist? > concat javascript_include_tag "#{controller_name}/#{action_name}" if > Rails.root.join("app/assets/javascripts/#{controller_name}/#{action_name}.coffee").exist? > end > end > > I'd be fine if that were a gem, though rails already generates controller > js files so it might make sense still. > > But seriously, can we please encourage not loading all of the javascript > for the entire application? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
